APHC010187292023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9641/2023 Between:

Adapa Venkata Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT

2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following order:

Questioning the disqualification of the petitioner in the technical bid in Tender Procurement vide Tender Id No.601913 in the name of “O&M of CPWS scheme to KV Palem and other habitations in Chimakurthy Mandal of Prakasam District for the year 2023-24 with an estimated contract value of Rs.60.00 Lakhs”, without assigning any reasons, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Venkareswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat and Sri Bala Krishna, learned Assistant government pleader for Panchayat Raj Department.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while re-iterating the contents of the writ affidavit submitted that, the petitioner is a Class-I civil contractor and used to execute works of R & B Department, Panchayat Raj Department and other Government Departments more particularly laying of roads and sewage works etc. He further submitted that, the 3^rd respondent, the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S Circle, Santhapeta, Ongole, called for tenders in Tender Id No.601913 in the name of “O&M of CPWS scheme to KV Palem and other habitations in Chimakurthy Mandal of Prakasam District for the year 2023-24 with an estimated contract value of Rs.60.00 Lakhs” and the petitioner has also participated in the said tender process. He further submitted that, the respondents did not open the bids at the scheduled time as contemplated in the tender notice and opened the technical bid on 12.04.2023 wherein the petitioner was disqualified without expressing any reasons.

He further submitted that the when the petitioner questioned the respondents about his disqualification in the technical bid, it was informed that as per clause 17.1 of the tender conditions, the petitioner was disqualified. He further submitted that, except the said reason, no other valid reasons were stated by the respondents. He further submitted that, if such action is allowed to materialize, the petitioner‟s right to participate in the tender would be defeated apart from rights guaranteed under the constitution. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, Sri Bala Krishna, learned Assistant government pleader for Panchayat Raj Department on counter submitted that, the agreement concluding authority i.e., Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ongole vide letter dated 08.02.2022 has directed the 3^rd respondent to take action against the petitioner for not complying the conditions of earlier contract in the work namely „O & M of CPWSS to Medarametla‟ for the period from 01.09.2020 onwards and accordingly, proposals were initiated for blacklisting the petitioner and the said proceedings are pending consideration before the Government. It was further submitted the petitioner is not transparent and does not have clean record and therefore, he was disqualified in the technical bids evaluation under clause 17.1, 26.1 and 30.2 of the bid conditions. As such, there is no irregularity in disqualifying the petitioner in bid evaluation and the petitioner has not made out any case warranting the interference of this court. He further submitted that, even otherwise, the scope of the writ jurisdiction in tender matters is limited and further, the petitioner did not establish any arbitrariness or malafideness on the part of the respondents. As such the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed a